United States of America v. Clintone Walker

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLINTONE WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30096
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00027-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Clintone Walker appeals from the six-month sentence imposed after the
district court found him in criminal contempt for failure to testify in a criminal
case, as ordered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-30096 2
Walker contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to discuss
the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court was not required to discuss the
Sentencing Guidelines because the offense was a Class B misdemeanor and the
Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to such misdemeanors. See Taylor v. Hayes,
418 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974) (recognizing that contempt cases tried without a jury
have a maximum sentence of six months); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(7)
(categorizing offenses with maximum sentences of six months as Class B
misdemeanors); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.9 (providing that the Sentencing Guidelines do not
apply to Class B misdemeanors).
Walker also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider and discuss the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This contention
fails. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it
has considered them.”).
Walker further argues that his sentence was excessive. The district court did
not procedurally err and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of
the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-93.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --